Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov 28;208(2):112.e1–112.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.040

Table 5.

Performance of selected classification systems

Derived cohort Validation cohort
Total
scores for
each
scoring
system
Proportion failed
closures
AUC (95%CI) Proportion failed
closures
AUC (95%CI)
Waaldijk 0.53 (0.51- 0.56) 0.51 (0.49-0.53)
    0 108/616 (17.53%) 110/616 (17.83%)
    3 8/17 (47.06%) 3/12 (25.00%)
    4 2/3 (66.67%) 2/5 (40.00%)
Tafesse 0.66 (0.61- 0.71) 0.60 (0.55-0.65)
    0 16/184 (8.70%) 16/188 (8.51%)
    2 38/253 (15.02%) 47/224 (20.98%)
    3 64/200 (32.00%) 52/225 (23.11%)
Goh 0.62 (0.57-0.67) 0.62 (0.57- 0.68)
    0 14/141 (9.93%) 18/141 (12.77%)
    2 44/275 (16.00%) 33/274 (12.04%)
    4 60/221 (27.15%) 64/222 (28.83%)
WHO 0.69 (0.64-0.74) 0.63 (0.57-0.68)
    0 32/337 (9.5%) 44/351 (12.54%)
    2 54/233 (23.18%) 44/215 (20.47%)
    4 32/67 (47.76%) 27/71 (38.03%)
Empirically
-derived
0.70 (0.65-0.75) 0.62 (0.56-0.67)
    0 23/277 (8. 30%) 32/271 (11.81%)
    1 10/78 (12. 82%) 16177 (20.78%)
    2 29/121 (23.97%) 24/147 (16. 33%)
    3 56/161 (34.78%) 43/142 (30.28%)